Appeal No. 2001-1195
Application No. 09/154,485
have suggested application of its teachings to the arrangement disclosed by Coates,
particularly in view of at least advantages 1, 2, 3, and 6 expressed in column 4 of
Ohashi.
Although we do not find express disclosure of a printed circuit board in Coates,
the reference contemplates, and at least suggests, more sophisticated controls than
those displayed in the figures that the artisan would see as requiring electronic
components and a printed circuit board. See, e.g., Coates col. 5, ll. 1-7.
Moreover, we note that instant claim 1 sets forth “a” switching device mounted
on each of the identical printed circuit boards and actuated by one of the control
elements. The recitation requires no more than, for example, addition of a printed
circuit board as taught by Ohashi to single control 62 (Coates col. 4, ll. 43-57; Fig. 3);
i.e., a combined switching device and printed circuit board suitable for use in different
orientations, with no preclusion of panel 64 remaining part of the final structure. Claim
1 further fails to preclude the use of different mounting panels or brackets for different
control knobs (or control elements, in the language of claim 1), contrary to any
implication by appellant at pages 4 through 5 of the Reply Brief that such is precluded
by the invention as claimed.
Appellant asserts perceived impracticalities in the physical combination of the
structures of Coates and Ohashi. We are mindful, however, that the test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a one reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of another reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007